dismissed L-1A Case: Art Trade

U.S. Department of Hameland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
&mtQhg data deleM to 
pmeat dearly unmmmh 
tllrn~f on " '--3)1 uriV&* 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 01 120 51 196 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 3 0 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been 
returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that 
office. 
3 
+ 
7 
> 
Robert P. Wiemann, 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 01 120 51 196 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The 
matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to be an import and export business engaged in the wholesale and retail of fine 
and applied art. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States as its director associate. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary had been or would be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On motion, the petitioner claimed that the evidence submitted was sufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary had been and would be employetl in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner 
further contends that the facts and circumstances surrounding the initial petition remain the same and 
should have been reviewed and applied in rendering the decision in the instant petition. The 
petitioner also asserts that the analysis applied in the instant case did not take into account what had 
been demonstrated in the initial application. 'The petitioner does not submit any evidence on motion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, that a motion to reopen must state 
the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by 
any pertinent precedent decisions tc~ establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on 
an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part, that a motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
The petitioner noted that CIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the 
other nonimmigrant petitions. However, the AAO is not required to approve applications or 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 
(Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged 
errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), 
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiuna Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Eligibility for CIS benefits and services must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
In the instant case, the petitioner's motion does not contain any new facts and is unsupported by any 
new evidence or pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the prior decisions were based on an 
EAC 01 120 51196 
Page 3 
incorrect application of law or CIS policy. 'Therefore, the motion will be dismissed in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.